Making whistleblowing safe: a view from the Philippines

New technologies that help human rights defenders are coming to developing countries, but those who blow the whistle need better protection.

A protest against the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act in Manila. Demotix/J Gerard Seguia. All rights reserved.

My organization,
the Foundation for Media Alternatives, is based in
the Philippines, and we work on advancing rights and freedoms in cyberspace. We
assist citizens and communities in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia—especially
civil society organizations and other development stakeholders—in their strategic
and appropriate use of the various information and communications tools to
further democratization and popular empowerment. We’re also part of the
Association for Progressive Communications, a global network of advocates
aspiring to use information and communications technology for social justice.

I’m usually
optimistic about new technologies that help human rights defenders coming to
developing countries such as the Philippines, but for the past few months, we have
been experiencing poor and slow Internet connections. This has been hindering
activists from using anonymous platforms or even from exchanging encrypted
files.

As a result, in our
country, whistleblowers most often carry out their business face to face. The downside
is that they have to talk or meet face to face with influential/credible people
(sometimes politicians) for mainstream media to pick up their revelations.

While I think
anonymous platforms for whistleblowers are very important in a post-Snowden
revelation age where people fear for their safety and security online and
offline, we should not forget that safe whistleblowing entails a whole lot more
than technology. Whistleblowers need strong legal protections to protect them
from retaliation and enable them to report offenses safely and freely. One shouldn’t and wouldn’t care if the whistleblower is, for example, a member of the LGBTQI community, or has a troubled past, as long as they send a truthful and useful document.

Almost a month ago,
Protection of Sources and Whistleblowers has been the topic of the report
released by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye. The report draws a number
of conclusions and urges states and international organizations to adopt or
improve laws and practices and to foster the political and social environments that
provide genuine protection to sources and whistleblowers. Such protections
should be adopted not only by governments but also international organizations
such as the United Nations, or the Council of Europe.

Nica Dumlao (left) at the 2015 World Forum for Democracy. Council of Europe/David Betzinger. All rights reserved.

Whistleblowers
should be guaranteed confidentiality and the possibility of anonymity in their
reporting. National laws protecting the confidentiality of sources should be
adopted. Laws guaranteeing confidentiality must also reach beyond professional
journalists, including those who may be performing a vital role in providing
wide access to information of public interest such as bloggers, citizen
journalists” members of non-governmental organizations, authors, and academics,
all of whom may conduct research and disclose information that is in the
interest of the public. Protection should be based on function, not a formal
title.

Whistleblowing is
an important ingredient of democracy. It is a measure to balance power. In our
part of the world, Asia Pacific, we are still faced with challenges, lack of
democratic governance, limited transparency, and little public participation. Freedom
of information is not guaranteed. Whistleblowers, although generally frowned
upon by as they counter the norms of feudal Asian societies, have historically
(or herstorically) been helpful in exposing undemocratic practices such as
corruption. Whistleblowers are human rights defenders too.

The whistleblowing
platforms presented at this panel
will help, I am sure, to expand democratic space if tweaked and implemented based
on the realities and contexts faced by the people they wish to support. It’s
also good to note that, with an anonymous platform, one will just focus on what
is exposed, rather than on the person exposing. One shouldn’t and wouldn’t care
if the whistleblower is, for example, a member of the LGBTQI community, or has a
troubled past, as long as they send a truthful and useful document.

Alongside promoting
anonymous whistleblowing technologies, we should also collectively put pressure
on governments to respect everyone’s right to online privacy. We need to fight against
the circumvention of whistleblower’s anonymity through the monitoring of electronic
communication or requests for private information from intermediaries.

This post is adapted from the address given by the
author during a panel
discussion at the World Forum for Democracy, which was held at the Council
of Europe in Strasbourg on 20-22 November 2015.

There is an acute and growing tension between the concern for safety and the protection of our freedoms. How do we handle this? Read more from the World Forum for Democracy partnership.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

World Forum for Democracy 2017

This year, the theme is ‘populism’. Is the problem fake news or fake democracy? What media, what political parties, what politicians do we need to re-connect with citizens and make informed choices in 21st century democracy?

Civil Society Futures is a national conversation about how English civil society can flourish in a fast changing world.Come and add your voice»

Full coverage of the non-hierarchical conference held in Barcelona on 18-22 June 2017.